Jagdish Prasad Burman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 8865 MP

                          1                 W.P. No. 11033/2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
           AT JABALPUR
                        BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                ON THE 15th OF JUNE, 2023
              WRIT PETITION No. 11033 of 2023
BETWEEN:-

JAGDISH PRASAD BURMAN S/O SHRI BADDI
BURMAN,    AGED    ABOUT     59   YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O WARD NO 2, GRAM
KHAMTARA, TAHSIL DHIMARKHEDA, DISTRICT
KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)




                                              .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANOJ CHANDURKAR- ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
      THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
      PHE DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAVAN,
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)




2.    CHIEF ENGINEER P.H.E. DEPARTMENT,
      JABALPUR REGION JABALPUR (MADHYA
      PRADESH)




3.    EXECUTIVE      ENGINEER      P.H.E.
      DEPARTMENT,    PARIYOJNA   KHAND,
      KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)




                                            .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE )
                                                 2                             W.P. No. 11033/2023




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

following:

                                                    ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ against the respondents directing them to pay the arrears of minimum pay scale from the date of classification i.e. 19.09.2003, as per 5th pay commission till 31.12.2005, as per 6th pay commission w.e.f. 1.1.2006 till 22.3.2017 and as per 7th pay commission from 1.1.2016 till 22.3.2017 with interest as per the order of this Court dt.25.1.2019."

2. Originally, it was the case of the petitioner that in light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray reported in 2017 (3) SCC 436, the minimum of pay scale without any increment is not being paid to the petitioner.

3. However, the respondents have filed their return and it is submitted that the petitioner has been given to arrears of minimum pay scale from the date of classification i.e. 19.09.2003 to 14.12.2016 and the benefit of 7th Pay Commission has also been extended w.e.f. 08.08.2022 as per his entitlement.

4. In view of the subsequent events, the counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments to the fact that the petitioner was entitled for arrears of minimum of pay scale up to 21.03.2017 whereas he has been

extended the benefit only up to 14.12.2016 and he is entitled for the benefit of 7th Pay Scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. It appears that the major grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed by the respondents. However, the petitioner is aggrieved by the calculation done by the respondents. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to move an application before the respondents putting forward his grievance.

7. Needless to mention that if such a representation is made, then the respondents shall decide the same by passing a speaking order within a period of 30 days from thereafter.

8. If the respondents are of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the arrears of minimum of pay scale up to 21.03.2017, then the same shall be paid. However, they shall pass a specific order pointing out the reasons for non entitlement of the petitioner for the said purposes.

9. Similarly, the respondents shall also specifically point out as to whether the petitioner is entitled for arrears of 7th Pay Commissioner w.e.f. 01.01.2016 or not?

10. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the case and the decision be taken strictly in accordance with law without getting influenced or prejudiced by this order.

11. With aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed of.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE

ashish ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE 2023.06.20 11:06:22 +05'30'